As you read this, the world is watching Copenhagen. Top-level leaders from nearly 200 countries, tens of thousands of activists, and untold numbers of eco-oriented non-governmental organizations (NGOs)-including more than a few folks from the Santa Barbara area-have descended upon the Danish capital as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) nears completion.
With the Kyoto Protocol-the United Nations’ current, somewhat toothless climate change fighting treaty-set to expire in 2012, the Copenhagen gathering is considered by many to be the world’s last best chance to make definitive moves away from the planet-damning path we currently are on.
By Kodiak Greenwood
The shapes of Copenhagen.
Drama is high. On Monday, convention delegates from developing countries including Africa, India, and Brazil temporarily stormed out of the negotiations, outraged about the process’s failure to address their concerns about what climate change means for them. Others, like some in the United States and Europe, are actively speaking out against the authenticity of the science behind the call for climate change reform. To them, the notion of a global climate in flux due to human behavior is little more than a load of agenda-driven crap.
By Kodiak Greenwood
More signs of the time.
Then there are the protesters. As I write this, police sirens ring out in the cold night air; Molotov cocktail-throwing protesters clash with authorities in the name of eco-justice, their message a simple yet radical demand of system change instead of just climate change.
Past the halfway point in the two-week convention, it is impossible to say what, if anything, Copenhagen will accomplish, but one thing is certain: Now, more than ever before, the health of our planet is in the hearts and minds of the many and varied people who call it home.
By Kodiak Greenwood
Welcome World: Climate change themed advertisements like this line the walls of Copenhagen Airport as tens of thousands of people arrive in Denmark’s capital city for the United Nation’s Framework Conference on Climate Change.
Climate Convention Breakdown
What does it mean when people say “climate change convention”? In reality, the gathering in Copenhagen of the UNFCCC actually is two concurrently running, acronym-loaded “processes,” with most players pulling duty in both efforts. The first, and more commonly known, process, the COP15 (Conference of the Parties), essentially is comprised of delegates from the United Nations’ Supreme Party (roughly 200 countries). The COP meets every year and talks climate change shop. The second process is known as the CMP (Parties to the Kyoto Protocol); folks from the COP get together once again, only this time they are convening specifically as a meeting of signers of the Kyoto Protocol.
Kodiak Greenwood
This is the head of the United States negotiating team, Todd Stern. He is our Special Envoy for Climate Change and, according to him, “The U.S. is doing a lot.” Many at the Bella Center don’t agree with him.
Within these two processes-and this is where stuff gets complicated-there are various subgroups. Each of these subgroups are tasked with working toward compromise on big-ticket items such as negotiating legally binding climate reduction commitments beyond the 2012 expiration of the Kyoto Protocol, or figuring out an entirely new international climate deal. It is within these subgroups that most of the action happens.
Kodiak Greenwood
This is European Union lead negotiator Stavros Dimas. Still hopeful for a sweeping climate deal, Dimas, who is the EU’s Environment Commissioner, explained that the process needs the United States to step up and fast.
Throughout this bureaucratic dance, you have the divergent interests of big polluting countries, such as the U.S. and China, going head-to-head with the concerns of smaller, less-developed countries that find themselves on the front lines of climate changing effects, like the Pacific Island nation of Kiribati or African countries. This year’s convention is of such importance not only because of the soon-to-expire Kyoto Protocol, but also the ever-increasing international consensus that climate change is real, quickly accelerating, and potentially deadly.
The other major players in the climate convention are the NGOs, which make up what amounts to a science fair on steroids in the conference center building. On some occasions, certain NGOs are allowed to sit in on the subgroup negotiations to help make the magic happen.
During the last three days of the convention, high-profile leaders from all the countries involved join the circus and the final push for compromise is made. As of press time, that’s exactly what’s happening.
The following is Operation Copenhagen’s day-by-day account of the convention.
By Kodiak Greenwood
Bikes are everywhere in Copenhagen and most of them aren’t even locked.
Thursday, December 10
After more than 20 hours of travel via planes, trains, and automobiles, Operation Copenhagen has arrived in its namesake destination. We have taken up residence across town from the Bella Center, the convention’s headquarters, in the N,rrebro neighborhood. At first light tomorrow, we will hop on the 5A bus and head into the heart of the convention, but for now, we sleep.
By Kodiak Greenwood
This is on your right just before you arrive at the Belle Center via the metro. We have no idea what it is but it looks pretty cool.
Friday, December 11
Holy crap, this ain’t no Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting. The UNFCCC is in a league all its own-an absolute action-packed and information-loaded three-ring bureaucratic circus. With a staggering crush of media folks (some 35,000 are reported to be in attendance), untold numbers of NGO representatives, scores of official conference observers, and hundreds of diplomats, scientists, and politicians, this is an impressive gathering that many are calling “the most important environmental moment of our lives.” Or, as COP15 Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer put it this afternoon, “This is about the future of people.”
Kodiak Greenwood
Our first view of the Bella Center and our first view of blue sky.
Unlike its simple, block-like exterior, inside, the Bella Center is a buzzing, casino-esque labyrinth of exhibition booths and breakout rooms that hum all day with presentations (covering such topics as climate change’s impact on biodiversity in South America’s rain forests to how a successful climate treaty could increase the gross national happiness of Bhutan), closed-session negotiations, and nonstop press briefings.
We spend much of our morning getting acquainted with the layout of the convention before sitting in on an emotionally charged presentation from Australia’s Climate Action Network about grim climate change-induced realities, while being stared down by the residents of Kiribati and other small Pacific island nations.
Kodiak Greenwood
The Pacific island of Tarawa, Pelenise Alofa’s (pictured) home, is slowly being consumed by rising sea levels. “When I leave Copenhagen” says Alofa, “I want to go back home with Hopenhagen.”
While many in the United States debate whether or not climate change is a reality, the folks from tropical-paradise atolls like Kiribati and Tarawa, as well as the Torres Strait Islands, don’t have time for such luxury-they are too busy coming to terms with the certain death of their culture if things continue on their current climate course. The increase in global temperatures and the resulting sea level rise from melting ice caps has basic things like food, shelter, and drinking water very much on the ropes in their low-lying islands (Kiribati, for example, is, at most, only three meters above sea level).
Kodiak Greenwood
Yvo de Boer is the Executive Secretary of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Here he is caught in an accidental moment of prayer during an afternoon briefing with the media about the conference’s progress.
Next, we attend Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer’s daily afternoon briefing. The first week of the convention nearly complete, de Boer optimistically reported, “Serious work has begun on the core elements that will constitute the agreement that will emerge at the end of this meeting.” With the main negotiation sessions betwixt countries closed to the media, the large international crowd of journalists on hand had to take his word for it.
Perhaps the biggest news from today was a pledge from the European Union to pony up some 7.2 billion euros to help finance the immediate implementation of a climate treaty. While de Boer speculated that a legitimate deal would take more than three times that amount for implementation alone during the first three years, the promise of funding from such a big player is indeed promising for the process, especially at this early stage. “Now, we just have to wait and see what other rich countries offer,” explained de Boer.
By Kodiak Greenwood
The is the Google Earth exhibition booth. It has eight large plasma screens all synced together and waiting for you tell it where to fly — on land or under water, anywhere in the world. Kodi thinks we should use it to find pirate treasure.
Saturday, December 12
Something wild happened on the way to the Bella Center today. While things were relatively quiet at the COP15, it was anything but in the streets of Copenhagen. Tens of thousands of protesters from around the world gathered in front of Denmark’s Parliament building throughout the morning, letting convention delegates know just how disappointed they are with the current track of the negotiations. Several hours and a few police standoffs later, most of them had made the five-mile walk to the convention, save for the 900 or so who were arrested along the way.
Kodiak Greenwood
This young lady is from the Climate Justice Action crew. She, as the sign says, hasn’t eaten for more than a month. Some of her cohorts are helping organize a “flood” of the Copenhagen streets tomorrow.
Operation Copenhagen was on the scene bright and early, making it to the square in front of the Parliament building before most of the crowd arrived. Soon, a “flood” of some 3,000 people wearing blue ponchos swarmed the square in front of Parliament. (The location has a great deal of historical relevance as it’s the place where, in June 1849, mobs of disillusioned working-class Danish people assembled to call out King Frederick VII and demand a piece of the leadership pie.) The blue-clad protesters were part of Friends of the Earth International, and they were there to demand climate justice and, more specifically, to call bullshit on the notion of carbon offsetting-a popular method explored by the COP15 that allows major polluting countries like the U.S. to achieve target reduction goals by paying for carbon credits from smaller, less polluting, and often less financially endowed countries.
Kodiak Greenwood
This is the view of the conference’s cafeteria area from above. Guess how many laptops?
While activist actors manned a Global Offsetting Station and shouted sarcastic quips in thick Eastern European accents into microphones (such as, “Who needs climate justice? We are capitalists,” and, “Do you have carbon emissions problem? No worries. Just buy your permit here. It’s okay, it’s magic, your emissions will disappear”), the blue ponchos stormed the square and a celebration began.
By Kodiak Greenwood
This is one of those moments when authorities weren’t really in control.
After a short speech from Friends of the Earth International leadership, the protest turned into a feel-good dance party of sorts with whistles blowing, drums banging, and flags waving. And while it may have looked like a party to the many police officers looking on, it really was just the slow progress of a massive march. As the morning wore on, people kept arriving to the square, and while the umbrella purpose was climate action, the divergent interests showing up to have their voices heard was impressive.
Kodiak Greenwood
The sign and the haircut says it all.
From communist groups and Greenpeace to radical vegetarians and a pro-Iranian crew, it seemed there wasn’t any activist subgroup without representation in the march. There was a team of flaming panda bears, a huge melting snowman, Tibetan monks, thousands of well-meaning regular folks, and the hardcore, punk-rock looking, often mullet- or Mohawk-haired “kids in black” who carry anarchy in their backpacks and wear a serious look of dissent on their face 24/7. Surveying the crowd, I promised myself I would have an escape route planned at all times for the rest of this convention, no matter where I was.
By Kodiak Greenwood
There is a fine line between a well-behaved and an out-of-control protest when there are 100,000 people involved and fires burning in the streets.
After many miles of marching, the masses gathered outside the Bella Center and started building fires in the street. In the end, authorities reported that most of the 900 people detained were released before charges were ever filed. A spokesperson for the police explained that these well-intentioned people were handcuffed and thrown in blacked-out paddy wagons as a “precaution.”
As we wearily made our way home after more than 13 hours in the trenches, fireworks began exploding in the skies above our neighborhood, several miles from the protest area.
By Kodiak Greenwood
Protesters took it to a new level today in Copenhagen. A reported 100,000 people marched from Denmark’s Parliament building to the COP15 with more than 900 of them getting arrested along the way.
Monday, December 14
The final week of the COP15 kicked off today with disappointment for some official delegates and observers alike. With already impressive crowds, a second wave of planned attendees arriving this week for the final push toward a climate deal, and security concerns about a possible terrorist strike or more radical protester dissent, convention organizers were forced to withdraw thousands of previously issued passes to the Bella Center. The end result was that many folks from NGOs, including observer groups like the crew of 20 students from UCSB’s Environmental Affairs Board, were left on the outside looking in. “The UCSB group is going to have quite a hassle getting in,” said Gaucho Jess White. “We’re trying to remain optimistic, but things are looking grim.”
Kodiak Greenwood
South Africa’s Desmond Tutu in the house.
Luckily, the increased lockdown of the Bella Center did not apply to the media masses, and, after a few more shakedowns by the police than we had encountered previously, we were once again inside the biggest planet-loving science fair the world has ever seen. It also was the scene of perhaps the biggest drama to date, at least on the negotiations front. In a dramatic turn of events, delegates from several developing and newly industrialized countries-including a handful of African nations, Brazil, India, and China-walked out in disgust in the middle of the talks.
Kodiak Greenwood
Another stoic face in one of the more colorful and culturally diverse crowds you will ever encounter.
For them, the current direction of the negotiations was too much about the needs and wants of industrial countries and too little about what developing nations require, specifically money-wise, in order to make widespread carbon emissions cuts feasible. Moreover, the frustrated nations feel that bigger, industrial countries are responsible for the majority of the carbon mess, and thus believe they should have to make bigger cuts and pay more toward the cleanup. Furthermore, the less industrialized countries are unwilling to hamstring their own economic growth. The irony that high-polluting yet still very much developing nations like China and India were involved in the walkout was not lost on most in the Bella Center, though it seems that such irony is the calling card of this incredibly complicated and confused process.
By Kodiak Greenwood
Quick action by Executive Secretary de Boer helped remedy the row, and the nations returned within a few hours. By the end of the day, industrialized countries like the United States, Italy, Britain, and Norway had pledged a total of $350 million during the next five years to help lesser-developed nations make the necessary pro-planet moves. Though not an ideal financial kick-down, the pledge was, at the very least, a sign of movement in the right direction.
Kodiak Greenwood
One of hundreds of arrests already in Copenhagen today. Tear gas, baton beat downs and civil unrest were not uncommon outside of the Bella Center last this morning.
As for the access issues being dealt with by the thousands of denied attendees, it seems there is little that can be done. The numbers are grim, according to convention authorities: some 46,000 have received accreditation, yet the fire code has the Bella Center maxing out at 15,000 people at any one time. Numbers aren’t really our thing here at Operation Copenhagen, but even we know that formula equals long lines and certain disappoint for thousands of hopeful participants.
Besides walkouts and lockouts, the other major news today was the breakout of some late-night riots in the Christiania area of Copenhagen. Though details remain sketchy, there are reports of Molotov cocktails, burning police barricades, approximately 200 arrested protesters, and general chaos in the streets.
By Kodiak Greenwood
More of the mid-morning mayhem in Copenhagen.
Tuesday, December 15
As the final phase gets underway today, it seems that if you are holding your breath waiting for a definitive climate change agreement, you better plan to pass out. With more than 130 heads of state arriving, chief negotiators for industrialized nations put on a happy face today, expressing optimism that a deal is still possible. But in the trenches, the feeling is decidedly different. That is to say, the fourth quarter just started, Planet Earth is down a couple touchdowns, and the other team has the ball. Or, as the COP15’s de Boer put it this afternoon, “There is still an enormous amount of work to be done if this conference is to deliver what the people around the world want it to.”
Kodiak Greenwood
Getting arrested is never fun. Unless of course you are trying to save the world in the process.
The omens were bad from the beginning. Lines snaked for as far as the eye could see, fences had been erected where previous freedom was enjoyed, and tensions among conference-goers were running high. Pushing, shoving, and swearing in several languages were not uncommon. Many never made it inside, including Rick Ridgeway, the vice president of Ventura-based clothing company Patagonia, who was invited officially by the U.S. government to present Patagonia’s new Freedom to Roam initiative, which aims to create vital wildlife corridors for critters big and small. Yesterday, he waited in line for seven hours but never made it in. Today, he waited for nearly five more hours, arriving to his presentation fewer than 30 minutes before it began. He was lucky. Many of the UCSB contingent-also “official” guests-have yet to crack the nut of the Bella Center.
Once inside, we saw a moving presentation by former president of Ireland Mary Robinson, who explained the various ways in which human rights must inform long-term visions for climate change reduction. A cornerstone of Robinson’s presentation was a recently released study from the UC Berkeley School of Law co-authored by Santa Barbara native Caitrin McKiernan.
By Kodiak Greenwood
Don’t let the empty seat in the negotiating room fool you, without China a climate deal won’t mean much.
That’s where Tuesday’s positivity ended. Sitting through numerous press briefings with lead delegates from the European Union, African nations, the United States, China, India, and the COP15 itself, it was clear that differences between parties still vastly outnumber agreements. Summing it up, Conference President Connie Hedegaard explained, “It is 193 parties that have to want to do the same thing at the same time. : This is a UN conference and everyone has to agree on everything, and if they don’t, it gets stopped. That is just the reality here.” But Hedegaard was adamant that a deal was still very much alive if two things could happen. “We must have the United States on board,” she explained, “and we must somehow reflect the Chinese, India’s, and Brazil’s action.”
Ethan Stewart and photographer Kodiak Greenwood are in Copenhagen to cover the United Nations Framework Conference on Climate Change.
The latter is most complicated. For global carbon reduction to happen, industrialization must be curbed within a nation, which is a great conflict of interest for countries that are still developing. Insult is added to injury when the United States-one of the biggest emitters and biggest economies-is unwilling to sacrifice as much as the little guys. The flip of this is China, simultaneously a massive polluter and a developing country, which is unwilling to box itself into a corner that would negatively impact its economy. It’s a nasty standoff, causing other nations to pick sides and conference facilitators to employ some serious mediation tactics to break stalemates. With the COP15 set to conclude in roughly 48 hours, this is not the state of affairs people had hoped for.
Kodiak Greenwood
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was on the scene Tuesday. A crowd favorite, The Governator was advocating the role of smaller, local government in taking the lead for enacting climate change, fighting policies no matter the outcome of COP15.
Also of note today, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger showed up, and, much to the delight of folks able to attend his standing-room-only presentation on the roles state- and city-level governments can play in ushering in climate change policy, he concluded his talk with an “I’ll be back” sound bite.
Tomorrow morning, the masses are rumored to be mobilizing at train stations throughout the city before making their way to the Bella Center in a coordinated effort to storm the convention. With more than 100,000 activists feeling properly disillusioned, nearly 70 percent of Denmark’s police force on call, and world leaders slated to start their official national statements at the Bella Center at high noon, the recipe seems ripe for mayhem. Even Conference President Hedegaard admitted today, “I believe that citizens out there might sense a discrepancy between their concerns and calls for action and what they hear coming out of the conference. : And I certainly understand that.”
By Kodiak Greenwood
The march outside the Bella Center turned ugly today as climate change activists clashed with Danish police. More than 260 people have been arrested and the day isn’t over yet. Already other confrontations have broken out in other parts of the city.
Wednesday, December 16
Though smaller than Saturday’s march, this morning’s Push for Climate Change protest took a turn for the radical outside the Bella Center shortly before noon today. With designs on making it past conference security fences, an international swarm of activists several-thousand-people strong gathered in the lightly falling snow, waving flags, banging drums, and chanting in unison, “Reclaim power!” and “Climate justice now!” Urged by a countdown from a speaker-loaded truck, the crowd surged and police surged back. Sirens blasted, helicopters whirled overheard, and the unmistakable scent of tear gas choked the late-morning air. One woman was hauled away by her throat, her hands zip-tied behind her back and her voice urgently pleading with the three riot gear-clad men dragging her across the cold pavement: “We are here in peace. We have a right to be here.”
By Kodiak Greenwood
No matter what, being hit by a batons hurts. As the protest ebbed and flowed, injured activists could be scene wandering around dazed, bloodied and bruised.
In the end, more than 200 people were arrested as police used batons, tear gas, pepper spray, water cannons, and a steady procession of armored vans to force the crowds away from the Bella Center’s entryway. As violent as it was, it could have been much worse as officers showing restraint greatly outnumbered those bludgeoning men and women alike with batons in their efforts to disperse the crowds.
By Kodiak Greenwood
If you have been in this position before you usually don’t want to be in it again. Unless of course you are trying to save Planet Earth.
With fewer than 48 hours remaining, negotiations can’t afford to be distracted by the mayhem outside-though today’s resignation of Hedegaard as conference president assures that there’s no shortage of turmoil inside either. Presidents from more than 70 nations have already arrived, with 60 more slated to show up, and one very important one, President Barack Obama, scheduled to attend the final hours of negotiations on Friday morning. Every one of them is well-aware, much like the men and women rallying outside, that it is now or never for the COP15 and-depending on whom you talk to-the world as well.
My understanding is that much of the wrangling going on inside the conference concerns the creation of an international governing body that can monitor and regulate the transfer of funds from the rich nations to the poor nations, and verify the reductions on carbon. Well isn't this an example of the same kind of "problem/reaction/solution" paradigm so commonly used to deceive the masses into willingly accepting the shackles of the ruling class? In other words we have a problem with climate change. The reaction is to demand reductions in green house gasses that cause warming. Government provides the solution in the form of an internationally enforceable agreement to eliminate carbon. Another way of looking at this is in the form of the Hegelian dialectic. For example, we have a pre-synthesized outcome that we want to achieve; Global Government and control. Unfortunately, people are largely content with their lifestyle and government as it is, so they say "no, thank you." If we want power and control on a global scale we must identify a global problem that requires our pre-synthesized solution to solve. Enter the global warming scare. Now, people will willingly throw gobs and gobs of money at the problem and make great personal sacrifices to achieve your pre-synthesized goal; Global Government and control. Certainly you would need an agency with some teeth that can enforce the treaty. The Copenhagen agreement contains the provision for a government, although that word has since been altered. The aim however, remains the same and is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations. This also factors into the disagreements with regards to specific wording as the author has noted the contention between using the word "shall" vs. "should." Obviously there's a lot less wiggle room if the signee's agree that they "shall" commit to a specific change as compared to "should." In order to hold the signees to their word, we need strongly binding agreements that are enforceable by a Global Government body or agency. In order to make us safer, we need to give up our freedom and independence as a country for the greater benefit of all mankind.
Does anybody remember how we felt after 9-11 when we were told by the nice people in the Bush administration that if we just passed the Patriot Act we could be so much safer? So what if the government is listening to our conversations and monitoring your email with out a warrant? If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about, right? Of course the Patriot Act is wrong because it's the creation of the evil republicans. Republicans are only motivated by greed, war, profit and superstition. The liberal progressives are motivated by a peace and love, fairness, and welfare to others. They are much more likely to be perceived by the masses as their benefactors. So when they come to us asking us to give up our freedom or national sovereignty, it's not because they want to control us like the neo-cons. They just want to keep us safe from ourselves and the rich fat cats trying to destroy the world, and that kind of peace of mind is something worth giving up our freedom and self rule for. If we only signed this agreement we could keep the world safe from increasing in average temperature by 1-2 degrees Celsius in the next one hundred years. The benefit of our sacrifices will almost be measurable and significant outside of the statistical sampling error. A universal healthcare system in the United States is the optimum tool that we could use to achieve this end. Once we agree to be bound to the authority of a Copenhagen style agreement it's not too far of a stretch to see the Global government dictating health care policy in individual countries. Since CO2 is an inseparable cornerstone of the lifecycle; the best way to minimize its atmospheric release is to reduce populations. The most efficient way to achieve this end is via a universal health care system, and in my opinion, the most sensible way to eliminate emissions is to target the less productive populations first; i.e. the old, the poor and the young. We can offer incentives for voluntary sterilization through the use of carbon credits, thus improving the lifestyle of our productive citizens. We can further minimize the drag on society created by the poor, by offering free, on-demand abortions. Again this can be incentivized with carbon credits which can be used to purchase consumer goods. This also has an unintended benefit of disproportionately affecting minorities; thus lowering their political influence by decreasing their numbers over time. We can back off the age recommendations on cancer screenings and shorten life spans this way as well. No point in wasting a lot of money and carbon if it's too late to be treated anyway. Besides what tangible benefit do the elderly contribute to society anyways?
Energy production will need to be curtailed until cleaner methods can be brought online in sufficient quantities. Likewise it will be necessary to redesign all fuel burning engines to be in compliance with international regulations. Re-tooling or closing of all factories will become necessary to cope with these changes in engines. Consequently prices and unemployment must rise dramatically in order to send enough money to the developing nations for their implementation efforts. Due to the sharp rise in prices on energy, we will be plagued by a period of sustained unemployment; but these unproductive populations can be pacified by welfare programs and eventually eliminated through attrition and old age. Additionally populations can be further reduced through the use of limited scale wars and military engagements. Recruits can be allotted carbon credits for volunteering. Families who lose relatives can be compensated with an increase in carbon credits. Of course it goes without saying that diet has a big impact on health care and the environment. Couldn't we kill two birds with one stone by mandating a vegetarian diet? Of course we'll need to make sure that the food in the supply chain is safe, so it will be necessary to regulate all food production, and eliminate the possibility of unsafe food grown at home by private individuals without permit or license. It may further become necessary to repeal individual property rights if their misuse affects our ability to comply with international treaties. The tools to do this have already been achieved via the U.S. Supreme Court's recent liberalization of the eminent domain laws. In order to further ensure that nobody is cheating we will need to confiscate the guns. It'd be too easy to go out and shoot a "meal." Of course the guns won't be too hard to confiscate since the authorities have the registration records on file, and once the threat of an armed rebellion is eliminated we can get on to the serious business land confiscation.
Eventually it will be come to be a necessity to manipulate and control access to scientific knowledge. The truth must always be held subordinate to scientific fact. The masses must never be allowed to question or understand where their deeply held convictions came from (a salute to Bertrand Russell; my hat's off to you sir!). These beliefs must be slowly cultivated over time through mandatory public education and mass media. The power of the elite is only derived from the good will of the masses, and can only be sustained by the willingness of the masses to demand more regulation and protection from their government. Of course education and indoctrination of future generations will be critical to the success of this endeavor. We must use the schools to promote awareness of climate change and climate justice. We must never let future generations forget that their lifestyles are unsustainable and we were only able to achieve this lifestyle by exploiting those who are less fortunate than us. Furthermore we must do everything we can to equalize and eliminate this gap in lifestyles. Future generations must also be weaned off of their old fashioned superstitious religions in favor of scientific ecclesiasticism. The masses will willingly fall under the influence of celebrities such as actors, rock stars, and athletes, etc., who will be willing accomplices in spreading the word in exchange for a modest improvement in lifestyle. Children must become docile adults who are incapable of accepting any thought that is contradictory to their programming. Children naturally mock those who are different; and this trait should be exploited to achieve compliance and conformity. Wherever necessary, overactive and questioning children may need to be tranquilized to further enhance control. We can and should introduce same sex relationships to children (Don't be shy, give it a try!) to decrease the chances of unwanted pregnancies and hence unwanted carbon production. Incentives such as carbon credits should be used to promote preferred lifestyle choices. Naturally, children are born snitches and can be quite useful in monitoring and reporting to authorities illegal carbon producing activities of their parents. Recognizing this threat to their personal liberty from their offspring, men and woman may make the logical choice of not producing a child. Eventually the dwindling masses will find contentment in their life via the distractions of sports and entertainment, never thinking about what their life might have been.
Thank you CompetantObserver, you've validated my point. As I stated before..."Children must become docile adults who are incapable of accepting any thought that is contradictory to their programming.
...the truth must always be held subordinate to scientific fact. The masses must never be allowed to question or understand where their deeply held convictions came from ."
Actually, I think I've done a competent job in previous posts documenting:
scientific malfeasance and corruption media collusion calls for population reduction and control financial backing of the major Wall Street banks massive conflicts of interest between the IPCC director and business interests panicked calls for immediate and dramatic political and social change intimidation and name calling by the climate change faithful
Coming Soon: An 'International Environmental Organization'?
According to documents obtained by Fox News, a high-level group of dignitaries from 38 countries, including a bevy of environment ministers and other top environmental bureaucrats, held their first meeting under UNEP auspices last June in the Serbian capital of Belgrade to begin hammering out details of the task of "improving international environmental governance."
"Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock."
The term "urban warming" used above refers to the phenomenon whereby temperatures in urban centers show marked increase due to asphalt and cement structures which creates an insulation effect against the earth. This causes temperatures to increase faster and have overall higher averages within these urban centers simply because of their make-up. The larger the urban center, the bigger the effect. Thus urban centers have become hotter over the years simply because of they have grown bigger and there are more of them, nothing to do with CO2. If more weather stations were located in remote regions, the amount of warming we have seen over the past century would be smaller than what organizations such as the IPCC claim, and these changes would still have very little or nothing to do with CO2...which again I remind you is what plants breath. I don't know why environmentalists have this war against CO2, it's ridiculous.
A common straw man argument, parroted and well-represented by "loonpt" is here:
"...CO2...which again I remind you is what plants breath. I don't know why environmentalists have this war against CO2, it's ridiculous."
is often cited, and commonly explained -- with of course little effect on AGW deniers.
Here's an actual scientist saying why you shouldn't hate the player, hate the game: "We humans are changing the climate, largely by emitting vast quantities of carbon dioxide via the way we heat our houses, fuel our cars, and generate our electricity. This is unwise. Yes, the future climate, along with the increased carbon dioxide, may be good for some. For most people, however, the downsides of climate change are likely to far outweigh the benefits." http://www.morrissuntribune.com/event...
And for those who may not know, the "urban warming" effects (cited above, in detail) on temperature readings are well-known to natural scientists tracking weather and temperature data, and commonly adjusted and accounted for in reporting, modeling, and analysis.
Delingpole's blog has an interesting "follow the money" take on the why CO2 was targetted as public enemy number 1.
The CRU was set up and funded by the petroleum and nuclear industry. Natural gas (LNG) and nuclear energies are the next energy sources being positioned by the petroleum and nuclear industies to replace oil as we reach "peak oil" production. The production and delivery of LNG and nuclear will cost vast amounts of money to develop the infrastructure (which they want you to pay for).
The chief competetor to these energy sources is clean burning coal technology. Clean burning coal technology has evolved to a point where where it remains an excellent source of cheap and plentiful energy. The chief difference is the byproduct of CO2. Cosequently climate research (funded by the petroleum and nuclear industries) began to target the evils of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
"...The Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK was set up in 1971 with funding from Shell and BP as is described in the book: "The history of the University of East Anglia, Norwich; Page 285)" By Michael Sanderson. The CRU was still being funded in 2008 by Shell, BP, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex LTD (the nuclear waste people in the UK)
So they looked at the situation and realized that the difference between the different technologies to replace base load power generation was the amount of CO2 per kilowatt/hour.
At that point CO2 became the target. That happened sometime between 1985 and 1988."
-All of which is very informative. but then he goes on to make this statement about the do gooders looking to save the world -
"Now, the environmental movement is comprised mostly of followers, you can look up 'dihydrogen monoxide' (water), on many occasions at environmental conferences comedians and light news organizations have managed to get lots of environmentalists to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. So apparently they do not do a lot of independent analysis before making a conclusion, they are mostly followers."
I'm having a hard time following your argument which I believe is a refutation of loonpts post-
"...CO2...which again I remind you is what plants breath. I don't know why environmentalists have this war against CO2, it's ridiculous."
You attemp to refute with this source... "Here's an actual scientist (Dr. Pete Wyckoff is Associate Professor of Biology at the University of Minnesota, Morris.) saying why you shouldn't hate the player, hate the game: ...Yes, the future climate, along with the increased carbon dioxide, may be good for some. For most people, however, the downsides of climate change are likely to far outweigh the benefits."
So I read the editorial and Wyckoff's thesis seems to be that increased CO2 has promoted tree growth and more drought resistant trees. I'm guessing he means this to be the "good for some" part of his thesis.
"The changing relationship between climate and tree growth is a hot topic of research at your local university. Last Friday, Dr. Chris Cole and Dr. Jon Anderson, of the University of Minnesota, Morris, published a paper in the journal "Global Change Biology" showing that aspen trees in Wisconsin are growing faster than they used to, and much of the increase is attributed to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. Two weeks ago, a former student and I published a paper in the "Journal of Ecology" showing that oak trees in west central Minnesota became less sensitive to drought during the 20th century. If "dust bowl"-severity droughts come again soon, we project that the local oaks will suffer 50 percent less mortality than they likely did in the 1930s."
Then Wyckoff addresses the other half of his statement, "For most people, however, the downsides of climate change are likely to far outweigh the benefits."
"Since 1960, the rings in trees seem to have lost some of their power to record temperature...The relationship between tree rings and climate is becoming muddied by the rapid recent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. For most of the past 10,000 years, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained reasonably stable. Now they are skyrocketing. Modern tree rings are no longer the reliable recorders of temperature they once were. It is a good thing that we now have thermometers."
So is your argument that CO2 is bad because it helps trees grow faster and to be more drought resistant? Or is it your position that CO2 is bad because it forces scientists to rely on thermometers for temperature data instead of tree rings? In what way does this refute loonpts claim?
"...CO2...which again I remind you is what plants breath. I don't know why environmentalists have this war against CO2, it's ridiculous?"
You address the Urban Heat Island effect and dismiss it's significance as it is "commonly adjusted and accounted for in reporting, modeling, and analysis."
In science a variable such as this is in constant flux and is considered to be a confounding factor. A good study would seek to eliminate confounded data sources.
watch this simple video demonstration that contrasts a century of climate data using separate urban and rural data sets:
"...Urbanization, land use, and station siting matter.
Peter, a sixth grader, and his dad, thought so too, and take the data from NASA GISS and show in a simple video how climate trends can be manipulated.
They used a simple pairing of rural and urban sites to show the differences. This shows why homogenization, which smears all the data from urban and rural sites together, is a bad idea, and gives trends that don't exist in reality."
Most AGW deniers simultaneously hold two opposing positions: A) AGW is not happening; and B) if AGW is happening it just means more sunny days. It's a convenient position whenever the evidence is brought to their attention.
Let's make this as easy as possible. Upon what peer reviewed literature are you basing your denial of anthropogenic global warming? (Providing citations to reputable journals will earn you extra points.)
I know Goldman Sachs' henchmen haven't bought off all the scientists. I mean, I've read some of the legit published material, so it's out there.
Why even bother with peer reviewed literature? Why not just refute the 6th grader in the video posted above your post?
Do you take fault with any of his methodolgy? Do you find disagreement with his conclusion? How do you explain the lack of change in the average temperatures of rural locations over the past 111 years?
Do you believe that increases in temperatures found in cities correlates with increased temperatures in the upper atmosphere because that's where CO2 floats away to?
Do you believe the temperature data would be more accurate if they used tree rings instead? Would you let your doctor use tree rings to assess your temperature, or would you prefer a thermometer?
Much ado about nothing. Unfortunately, this junk science has become a political hot button. Watch your tax dollars disappear into research grants. Watch your economy be consumed by non-productive efforts to reduce global warming (how would we ever know? the data is highly debatable). But the Copenhagen attendees can claim victory for a generally unenforceable agreement.
Ok, I'll play along; per your request for peer reviewed literature skeptical of AGW-
"Upon what peer reviewed literature are you basing your denial of anthropogenic global warming? (Providing citations to reputable journals will earn you extra points.)"
Njau, Ernest C., 2007. Formulations of human-induced variations in global temperature. Renewable Energy Vol. 32, No 13, pp. 2211-2222, October 2007)]
I cite from the abstract, "...Mathematical expressions which represent possible human influence on global temperature variations are developed, analysed and discussed : This establishment implies that, contrary to previous expectations and opinions, anthropogenic [human-caused] activities hardly generate significant net alterations in global temperature or solar energy patterns. : This is apparently the first scientific finding in the open literature which tends to support the consistent disputing of the human element in climate change by the USA and Australia as well as the views of the "climate skeptics" which heavily supported the September 2003 World Climate Change Conference held in Moscow."
"One of the implications of the contents of this paper is that anthropogenic [man-made] activities are not the dominant force behind the post-1800 global warming trend. Atmospheric CO2 [carbon dioxide] is the primary greenhouse gas that is believed to have contributed to global warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The use of fossil fuels (e.g. oil, coal, natural gas, etc.) is the dominant source of anthropogenic CO2. In line with the implications of this paper, Ryabchikov shows that the main source of supply of CO2 to the atmosphere is not anthropogenic activities, but tropical regions of the ocean. These regions supply 21010 tons of air-borne CO2 annually to the temperate and circumpolar latitudes of the northern hemisphere."
So...you said, there'd be bonus points; what do I win?
Not easy enough, I guess. Be honest, you aren't even familiar with any of the scientific dissenting opinions, are you?
Henrik Svensmark, Eigel Friis-Christiansen, Nir Shaviv, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Jan Veizer, have all published literature that doubts the scientific consensus. I'm sure you're familiar with at least one of them.... or not.
Not long ago it was a coming ice age:.then Y2K was going to send us back to the Stone Age:now man caused climate change.
This despicable hubris is just another arrogant way to enrich a few and impoverish the many. All the while ignoring the real problems facing us. Problems that demand real leadership by real leaders:not religious zealots led by a disgraced vice-president, supported by disgraced scientific "experts".
I wonder if a reputable, (notice that we now have to say "reputable"), behaviorist could analyze, and compare, the similarities between man-made global warming fanatics, and the individual beliefs that are manipulated to brainwash and create religious zealots (think suicide bombers). They are more like monks participating in the ecclesiastical tribunals in Spain during the Inquisition; charged with trying and convicting heretics and combating or suppressing heresy. They seem to be using the religion of man-made global warming to fill a void in their lives. Daniel Petry
I have a question, and it's just a question: Is it true that Al Gore has refused to debate anyone on this issue? I know how quickly lies can be spread about people so again I emphasize that I am only asking a question here.
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
Myspace
Previous Month
Comments
We got some greenhouse gas for you protestors. "Don't tase me bro!"
AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2009 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My understanding is that much of the wrangling going on inside the conference concerns the creation of an international governing body that can monitor and regulate the transfer of funds from the rich nations to the poor nations, and verify the reductions on carbon. Well isn't this an example of the same kind of "problem/reaction/solution" paradigm so commonly used to deceive the masses into willingly accepting the shackles of the ruling class? In other words we have a problem with climate change. The reaction is to demand reductions in green house gasses that cause warming. Government provides the solution in the form of an internationally enforceable agreement to eliminate carbon.
Another way of looking at this is in the form of the Hegelian dialectic. For example, we have a pre-synthesized outcome that we want to achieve; Global Government and control. Unfortunately, people are largely content with their lifestyle and government as it is, so they say "no, thank you." If we want power and control on a global scale we must identify a global problem that requires our pre-synthesized solution to solve. Enter the global warming scare. Now, people will willingly throw gobs and gobs of money at the problem and make great personal sacrifices to achieve your pre-synthesized goal; Global Government and control.
Certainly you would need an agency with some teeth that can enforce the treaty. The Copenhagen agreement contains the provision for a government, although that word has since been altered. The aim however, remains the same and is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations. This also factors into the disagreements with regards to specific wording as the author has noted the contention between using the word "shall" vs. "should." Obviously there's a lot less wiggle room if the signee's agree that they "shall" commit to a specific change as compared to "should." In order to hold the signees to their word, we need strongly binding agreements that are enforceable by a Global Government body or agency. In order to make us safer, we need to give up our freedom and independence as a country for the greater benefit of all mankind.
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2009 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Does anybody remember how we felt after 9-11 when we were told by the nice people in the Bush administration that if we just passed the Patriot Act we could be so much safer? So what if the government is listening to our conversations and monitoring your email with out a warrant? If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about, right? Of course the Patriot Act is wrong because it's the creation of the evil republicans. Republicans are only motivated by greed, war, profit and superstition.
The liberal progressives are motivated by a peace and love, fairness, and welfare to others. They are much more likely to be perceived by the masses as their benefactors. So when they come to us asking us to give up our freedom or national sovereignty, it's not because they want to control us like the neo-cons. They just want to keep us safe from ourselves and the rich fat cats trying to destroy the world, and that kind of peace of mind is something worth giving up our freedom and self rule for.
If we only signed this agreement we could keep the world safe from increasing in average temperature by 1-2 degrees Celsius in the next one hundred years. The benefit of our sacrifices will almost be measurable and significant outside of the statistical sampling error.
A universal healthcare system in the United States is the optimum tool that we could use to achieve this end. Once we agree to be bound to the authority of a Copenhagen style agreement it's not too far of a stretch to see the Global government dictating health care policy in individual countries. Since CO2 is an inseparable cornerstone of the lifecycle; the best way to minimize its atmospheric release is to reduce populations. The most efficient way to achieve this end is via a universal health care system, and in my opinion, the most sensible way to eliminate emissions is to target the less productive populations first; i.e. the old, the poor and the young. We can offer incentives for voluntary sterilization through the use of carbon credits, thus improving the lifestyle of our productive citizens. We can further minimize the drag on society created by the poor, by offering free, on-demand abortions. Again this can be incentivized with carbon credits which can be used to purchase consumer goods. This also has an unintended benefit of disproportionately affecting minorities; thus lowering their political influence by decreasing their numbers over time. We can back off the age recommendations on cancer screenings and shorten life spans this way as well. No point in wasting a lot of money and carbon if it's too late to be treated anyway. Besides what tangible benefit do the elderly contribute to society anyways?
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Energy production will need to be curtailed until cleaner methods can be brought online in sufficient quantities. Likewise it will be necessary to redesign all fuel burning engines to be in compliance with international regulations. Re-tooling or closing of all factories will become necessary to cope with these changes in engines. Consequently prices and unemployment must rise dramatically in order to send enough money to the developing nations for their implementation efforts. Due to the sharp rise in prices on energy, we will be plagued by a period of sustained unemployment; but these unproductive populations can be pacified by welfare programs and eventually eliminated through attrition and old age. Additionally populations can be further reduced through the use of limited scale wars and military engagements. Recruits can be allotted carbon credits for volunteering. Families who lose relatives can be compensated with an increase in carbon credits.
Of course it goes without saying that diet has a big impact on health care and the environment. Couldn't we kill two birds with one stone by mandating a vegetarian diet? Of course we'll need to make sure that the food in the supply chain is safe, so it will be necessary to regulate all food production, and eliminate the possibility of unsafe food grown at home by private individuals without permit or license. It may further become necessary to repeal individual property rights if their misuse affects our ability to comply with international treaties. The tools to do this have already been achieved via the U.S. Supreme Court's recent liberalization of the eminent domain laws. In order to further ensure that nobody is cheating we will need to confiscate the guns. It'd be too easy to go out and shoot a "meal." Of course the guns won't be too hard to confiscate since the authorities have the registration records on file, and once the threat of an armed rebellion is eliminated we can get on to the serious business land confiscation.
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2009 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Eventually it will be come to be a necessity to manipulate and control access to scientific knowledge. The truth must always be held subordinate to scientific fact. The masses must never be allowed to question or understand where their deeply held convictions came from (a salute to Bertrand Russell; my hat's off to you sir!). These beliefs must be slowly cultivated over time through mandatory public education and mass media. The power of the elite is only derived from the good will of the masses, and can only be sustained by the willingness of the masses to demand more regulation and protection from their government.
Of course education and indoctrination of future generations will be critical to the success of this endeavor. We must use the schools to promote awareness of climate change and climate justice. We must never let future generations forget that their lifestyles are unsustainable and we were only able to achieve this lifestyle by exploiting those who are less fortunate than us. Furthermore we must do everything we can to equalize and eliminate this gap in lifestyles. Future generations must also be weaned off of their old fashioned superstitious religions in favor of scientific ecclesiasticism. The masses will willingly fall under the influence of celebrities such as actors, rock stars, and athletes, etc., who will be willing accomplices in spreading the word in exchange for a modest improvement in lifestyle.
Children must become docile adults who are incapable of accepting any thought that is contradictory to their programming. Children naturally mock those who are different; and this trait should be exploited to achieve compliance and conformity. Wherever necessary, overactive and questioning children may need to be tranquilized to further enhance control. We can and should introduce same sex relationships to children (Don't be shy, give it a try!) to decrease the chances of unwanted pregnancies and hence unwanted carbon production. Incentives such as carbon credits should be used to promote preferred lifestyle choices. Naturally, children are born snitches and can be quite useful in monitoring and reporting to authorities illegal carbon producing activities of their parents. Recognizing this threat to their personal liberty from their offspring, men and woman may make the logical choice of not producing a child. Eventually the dwindling masses will find contentment in their life via the distractions of sports and entertainment, never thinking about what their life might have been.
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2009 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe the above commenter's name is mispelled? The "R" at the end of Disturber should probably be a "D"
CompetentObserver (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2009 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you CompetantObserver, you've validated my point.
As I stated before..."Children must become docile adults who are incapable of accepting any thought that is contradictory to their programming.
...the truth must always be held subordinate to scientific fact. The masses must never be allowed to question or understand where their deeply held convictions came from ."
Actually, I think I've done a competent job in previous posts documenting:
scientific malfeasance and corruption
media collusion
calls for population reduction and control
financial backing of the major Wall Street banks
massive conflicts of interest between the IPCC director and business interests
panicked calls for immediate and dramatic political and social change
intimidation and name calling by the climate change faithful
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2009 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh snap! There's a new headline:
Coming Soon: An 'International Environmental Organization'?
According to documents obtained by Fox News, a high-level group of dignitaries from 38 countries, including a bevy of environment ministers and other top environmental bureaucrats, held their first meeting under UNEP auspices last June in the Serbian capital of Belgrade to begin hammering out details of the task of "improving international environmental governance."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,5...
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2009 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My scroll wheel is smoking.
Kratatoa (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2009 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
[twirls finger next to ear and points]
FightWoo (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2009 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jam...
"Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock."
loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2009 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The term "urban warming" used above refers to the phenomenon whereby temperatures in urban centers show marked increase due to asphalt and cement structures which creates an insulation effect against the earth. This causes temperatures to increase faster and have overall higher averages within these urban centers simply because of their make-up. The larger the urban center, the bigger the effect. Thus urban centers have become hotter over the years simply because of they have grown bigger and there are more of them, nothing to do with CO2. If more weather stations were located in remote regions, the amount of warming we have seen over the past century would be smaller than what organizations such as the IPCC claim, and these changes would still have very little or nothing to do with CO2...which again I remind you is what plants breath. I don't know why environmentalists have this war against CO2, it's ridiculous.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2009 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A common straw man argument, parroted and well-represented by "loonpt" is here:
"...CO2...which again I remind you is what plants breath. I don't know why environmentalists have this war against CO2, it's ridiculous."
is often cited, and commonly explained -- with of course little effect on AGW deniers.
Here's an actual scientist saying why you shouldn't hate the player, hate the game:
"We humans are changing the climate, largely by emitting vast quantities of carbon dioxide via the way we heat our houses, fuel our cars, and generate our electricity. This is unwise. Yes, the future climate, along with the increased carbon dioxide, may be good for some. For most people, however, the downsides of climate change are likely to far outweigh the benefits."
http://www.morrissuntribune.com/event...
And for those who may not know, the "urban warming" effects (cited above, in detail) on temperature readings are well-known to natural scientists tracking weather and temperature data, and commonly adjusted and accounted for in reporting, modeling, and analysis.
binky (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2009 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jam...
Delingpole's blog has an interesting "follow the money" take on the why CO2 was targetted as public enemy number 1.
The CRU was set up and funded by the petroleum and nuclear industry. Natural gas (LNG) and nuclear energies are the next energy sources being positioned by the petroleum and nuclear industies to replace oil as we reach "peak oil" production. The production and delivery of LNG and nuclear will cost vast amounts of money to develop the infrastructure (which they want you to pay for).
The chief competetor to these energy sources is clean burning coal technology. Clean burning coal technology has evolved to a point where where it remains an excellent source of cheap and plentiful energy. The chief difference is the byproduct of CO2. Cosequently climate research (funded by the petroleum and nuclear industries) began to target the evils of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
"...The Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK was set up in 1971 with funding from Shell and BP as is described in the book: "The history of the University of East Anglia, Norwich; Page 285)" By Michael Sanderson. The CRU was still being funded in 2008 by Shell, BP, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex LTD (the nuclear waste people in the UK)
So they looked at the situation and realized that the difference between the different technologies to replace base load power generation was the amount of CO2 per kilowatt/hour.
At that point CO2 became the target. That happened sometime between 1985 and 1988."
-All of which is very informative. but then he goes on to make this statement about the do gooders looking to save the world -
"Now, the environmental movement is comprised mostly of followers, you can look up 'dihydrogen monoxide' (water), on many occasions at environmental conferences comedians and light news organizations have managed to get lots of environmentalists to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. So apparently they do not do a lot of independent analysis before making a conclusion, they are mostly followers."
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2009 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hi Binky:
I'm having a hard time following your argument which I believe is a refutation of loonpts post-
"...CO2...which again I remind you is what plants breath. I don't know why environmentalists have this war against CO2, it's ridiculous."
You attemp to refute with this source... "Here's an actual scientist (Dr. Pete Wyckoff is Associate Professor of Biology at the University of Minnesota, Morris.) saying why you shouldn't hate the player, hate the game:
...Yes, the future climate, along with the increased carbon dioxide, may be good for some. For most people, however, the downsides of climate change are likely to far outweigh the benefits."
So I read the editorial and Wyckoff's thesis seems to be that increased CO2 has promoted tree growth and more drought resistant trees. I'm guessing he means this to be the "good for some" part of his thesis.
"The changing relationship between climate and tree growth is a hot topic of research at your local university. Last Friday, Dr. Chris Cole and Dr. Jon Anderson, of the University of Minnesota, Morris, published a paper in the journal "Global Change Biology" showing that aspen trees in Wisconsin are growing faster than they used to, and much of the increase is attributed to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. Two weeks ago, a former student and I published a paper in the "Journal of Ecology" showing that oak trees in west central Minnesota became less sensitive to drought during the 20th century. If "dust bowl"-severity droughts come again soon, we project that the local oaks will suffer 50 percent less mortality than they likely did in the 1930s."
http://www.morrissuntribune.com/event...
Then Wyckoff addresses the other half of his statement, "For most people, however, the downsides of climate change are likely to far outweigh the benefits."
"Since 1960, the rings in trees seem to have lost some of their power to record temperature...The relationship between tree rings and climate is becoming muddied by the rapid recent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. For most of the past 10,000 years, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained reasonably stable. Now they are skyrocketing. Modern tree rings are no longer the reliable recorders of temperature they once were. It is a good thing that we now have thermometers."
So is your argument that CO2 is bad because it helps trees grow faster and to be more drought resistant? Or is it your position that CO2 is bad because it forces scientists to rely on thermometers for temperature data instead of tree rings? In what way does this refute loonpts claim?
"...CO2...which again I remind you is what plants breath. I don't know why environmentalists have this war against CO2, it's ridiculous?"
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2009 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Also Binky:
You address the Urban Heat Island effect and dismiss it's significance as it is "commonly adjusted and accounted for in reporting, modeling, and analysis."
In science a variable such as this is in constant flux and is considered to be a confounding factor. A good study would seek to eliminate confounded data sources.
watch this simple video demonstration that contrasts a century of climate data using separate urban and rural data sets:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/pi...
"...Urbanization, land use, and station siting matter.
Peter, a sixth grader, and his dad, thought so too, and take the data from NASA GISS and show in a simple video how climate trends can be manipulated.
They used a simple pairing of rural and urban sites to show the differences. This shows why homogenization, which smears all the data from urban and rural sites together, is a bad idea, and gives trends that don't exist in reality."
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2009 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Most AGW deniers simultaneously hold two opposing positions: A) AGW is not happening; and B) if AGW is happening it just means more sunny days. It's a convenient position whenever the evidence is brought to their attention.
Let's make this as easy as possible. Upon what peer reviewed literature are you basing your denial of anthropogenic global warming? (Providing citations to reputable journals will earn you extra points.)
I know Goldman Sachs' henchmen haven't bought off all the scientists. I mean, I've read some of the legit published material, so it's out there.
FightWoo (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2009 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
FightWoo:
Why even bother with peer reviewed literature? Why not just refute the 6th grader in the video posted above your post?
Do you take fault with any of his methodolgy? Do you find disagreement with his conclusion? How do you explain the lack of change in the average temperatures of rural locations over the past 111 years?
Do you believe that increases in temperatures found in cities correlates with increased temperatures in the upper atmosphere because that's where CO2 floats away to?
Do you believe the temperature data would be more accurate if they used tree rings instead? Would you let your doctor use tree rings to assess your temperature, or would you prefer a thermometer?
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2009 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Much ado about nothing. Unfortunately, this junk science has become a political hot button. Watch your tax dollars disappear into research grants. Watch your economy be consumed by non-productive efforts to reduce global warming (how would we ever know? the data is highly debatable). But the Copenhagen attendees can claim victory for a generally unenforceable agreement.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
FightWoo
Ok, I'll play along; per your request for peer reviewed literature skeptical of AGW-
"Upon what peer reviewed literature are you basing your denial of anthropogenic global warming? (Providing citations to reputable journals will earn you extra points.)"
Njau, Ernest C., 2007. Formulations of human-induced variations in global temperature. Renewable Energy Vol. 32, No 13, pp. 2211-2222, October 2007)]
I cite from the abstract, "...Mathematical expressions which represent possible human influence on global temperature variations are developed, analysed and discussed : This establishment implies that, contrary to previous expectations and opinions, anthropogenic [human-caused] activities hardly generate significant net alterations in global temperature or solar energy patterns. : This is apparently the first scientific finding in the open literature which tends to support the consistent disputing of the human element in climate change by the USA and Australia as well as the views of the "climate skeptics" which heavily supported the September 2003 World Climate Change Conference held in Moscow."
To read a pdf of this paper click here:
http://www.aseanenvironment.info/Abst...
He further elaborates:
"One of the implications of the contents of this paper is that anthropogenic [man-made] activities are not the dominant force behind the post-1800 global warming trend. Atmospheric CO2 [carbon dioxide] is the primary greenhouse gas that is believed to have contributed to global warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The use of fossil fuels (e.g. oil, coal, natural gas, etc.) is the dominant source of anthropogenic CO2. In line with the implications of this paper, Ryabchikov shows that the main source of supply of CO2 to the atmosphere is not anthropogenic activities, but tropical regions of the ocean. These regions supply 21010 tons of air-borne CO2 annually to the temperate and circumpolar latitudes of the northern hemisphere."
So...you said, there'd be bonus points; what do I win?
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2009 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not easy enough, I guess. Be honest, you aren't even familiar with any of the scientific dissenting opinions, are you?
Henrik Svensmark, Eigel Friis-Christiansen, Nir Shaviv, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Jan Veizer, have all published literature that doubts the scientific consensus. I'm sure you're familiar with at least one of them.... or not.
FightWoo (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2009 at 7:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok, but is there something about Svensmark, et al. that is fishy? Are they just a bunch of denier jerks? What is your criticism specifly?
And what about Peter the 6th grader's video? The kid's game is tight.
Disturber (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2009 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not long ago it was a coming ice age:.then Y2K was going to send us back to the Stone Age:now man caused climate change.
This despicable hubris is just another arrogant way to enrich a few and impoverish the many. All the while ignoring the real problems facing us. Problems that demand real leadership by real leaders:not religious zealots led by a disgraced vice-president, supported by disgraced scientific "experts".
I wonder if a reputable, (notice that we now have to say "reputable"), behaviorist could analyze, and compare, the similarities between man-made global warming fanatics, and the individual beliefs that are manipulated to brainwash and create religious zealots (think suicide bombers). They are more like monks participating in the ecclesiastical tribunals in Spain during the Inquisition; charged with trying and convicting heretics and combating or suppressing heresy. They seem to be using the religion of man-made global warming to fill a void in their lives. Daniel Petry
jcrdan (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2009 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have a question, and it's just a question: Is it true that Al Gore has refused to debate anyone on this issue? I know how quickly lies can be spread about people so again I emphasize that I am only asking a question here.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2009 at 9:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)